CADRES has made the report available for public use. Click here to download the report.
The report was launched in Guyana on 19th July, 2013.
The launch event featured a presentation by Mr Peter Wickham, Director of CADRES
This is a slide cast of the presentation.
Attitudes towards homosexuals in Guyana from Caribbean International Resource Network
The launch event also featured responses by a panel which included the following persons. (Click on the links to listen to the audio files of the presentations)
---
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
By Latoya Giles
The much anticipated launch of the survey report “Attitudes toward Homosexuals in Guyana” was held yesterday at the Moray House, where several panelists including Peter Wickham, the Director of CADRES made presentations.
Senior lecturer in the Department of Social Studies, of the University of Guyana, Dr. Mellissa Ifill, was one of the presenters. Her presentation was dubbed evaluating the Situation of LBGTI Individuals in Guyana.
According to Dr. Ifill, the survey and consequential report “Attitudes towards Homosexuals in Guyana 2013” fills an important vacuum in the examination of the situation of the Lesbian, Bisexual, and Gay, Transgender and Intersex (LBGTI) individuals in Guyana. She said that it exposes the attitudes, beliefs and perceptions that justify and excuse discrimination and maltreatment of citizens with differing sexual orientations and in fact, reinforces many of findings of the more focused, less extensive qualitative studies conducted in Guyana.
Director of CADRES, Peter Wickham delivering the findings of a research on Attitudes Towards Homosexuals in Guyana.
The launch event also featured responses by a panel which included the following persons. (Click on the links to listen to the audio files of the presentations)
- Bishop Francis Alleyne, Head of the Catholic Diocese of Guyana
- Dr Melissa Ifill, Lecturer in the Department of Social Studies, University of Guyana. Dr Ifill has also shared the text of her presentation entitled "Evaluating the situation of LGBTI individuals in Guyana"
- Ms Colleen McEwan, director of the Guyana Rainbow Foundation
---
More Guyanese tolerant of homosexuals from Stabroek News
Guyanese
are largely either tolerant or accepting of homosexuals, though most
believe that being homosexual is a matter of choice, according to a
recent study by Caribbean Development Research Services Inc (CADRES), a
regional political consultancy firm.
Fifty-eight per cent of Guyanese are either tolerant or accepting of homosexuals, while 17 per cent are undecided and 25 per cent homophobic, according to the survey. The study also found that three per cent of Guyanese have admitted to being homosexual (male or female) while 4 per cent admitted to bisexuality.
The results of the survey and consequential report titled ‘Attitudes towards Homosexuals in Guyana 2013’ were revealed yesterday at a launching that was held at Moray House Trust. A summary of the data was presented by Director of CADRES Peter Wickham.
According to the findings, homophobia or lack of tolerance of homosexuals correlates directly with age, sex, race and to a lesser extent religion, place of origin and education. As a result, women, younger persons and Guyanese who were born outside Guyana tended to be more comfortable with homosexuals. The survey said Guyanese generally think that homosexuality is largely a male phenomenon and moreover it is a “choice”.
It further stated that “it is interesting that the cross tabulation of main demographic categories demonstrates that women are more tolerant than men, older people tend to be more homophobic and persons who are more educated tend to be less homophobic and more tolerant.”
However, it was also found that “active-Evangelical Christians, Afro Guyanese and those who have been “less well educated tended to be more homophobic.” Muslims and Hindus on the other hand “appear to be less accepting, but not necessarily more homophobic,” the study said.
“Notwithstanding the largely positive stance of the vast majority of Guyanese toward homosexuals, it is also clear that fundamental misunderstandings exist among Guyanese regarding several basic facts about homosexuality, and it is entirely possible that these misunderstandings could impact negatively on attitudes,” it added.
Moreover, the study showed that a 71 per cent of Guyanese consider discrimination against homosexuals as being “wrong” but at the same time they “do not seem to think that homosexuals are currently being discriminated against, or that the state needs to provide special protection for them.” Only 18 per cent of respondents argued that such violence could not be considered discrimination with a further 12 per cent indicating that they were unsure.
The study also identified the opinion of Guyanese as it pertained to the buggery law. It showed that “a slender majority, being 53 per cent, of Guyanese support the retention of the buggery law; however further investigation reveals that many of these persons are both unfamiliar with the specific provisions of this law and when advised of the specifics believe it to be ‘illogical’ in some instances.
“Although there is no profound appetite for legislative change at this time, Guyanese believe that a clear demonstration that these laws are impacting negatively on the physical or psychological well-being of young people or adults would provide good grounds for change,” the study added. But there is also support for change if it can be proven that the law contributes to the spread of HIV.
At the presentation yesterday were human rights activists, members of the religious community and the University of Guyana (UG). Representing UG was Dr Melissa Ifill who spoke extensively on the evaluation of the situation of Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgender and Intersex (LBGTI) persons.
She noted that the study filled an important vacuum in the examination of the situation of LBGTI individuals in Guyana. Dr Ifill noted that “prior to this quantitative survey, the studies conducted to date have several limitations including small sample size, largely qualitative in scope and have been largely concentrated on Men who have sex with Men (MSM) and male/transgender sex workers within the donor driven context of HIV/AIDS research.”
She said this study “exposes the attitudes, beliefs and perceptions that justify and excuse discrimination and mal-treatment of citizens with differing sexual orientations and in fact, reinforces many findings of the more focused, less extensive qualitative studies conducted in Guyana.”
Dr Ifill also stated that there are still “serious legal consequences for male homosexuality by law while female homosexuality continues to be largely ignored. While the law banning homosexual intercourse is specifically directed towards men and ignores homosexual contact between women, the laws against cross dressing apply equally to men and women although, women wearing male garb have not been prosecuted while men wearing female garb have been placed before the courts and subjected to ridicule, intolerance or abuse from members of the public and even members of the judiciary.”
Last year, a parliamentary committee was set up to hold national consultations on recommendations by the United Nations Human Rights Council for decriminalizing consensual same sex relations and instituting legislative changes to prevent discrimination against LGBTI persons, as well as to abolish the death penalty and corporal punishment. To date, the committee has only held consultations on corporal punishment.
The research was conducted with participants from across Guyana based on random selection normally associated with polling divisions (PDs) in each administrative division. The information was then obtained largely by interviews, with the sample population being 1,034. As it relates to the gender makeup of the sample size, 47 per cent of the respondents were male while 53 per cent were females. The majority of the respondents were also said to be Africans.
It is also stated that the study could be considered a comprehensive presentation of data but it was agreed that it should not be seen or used as a strategic document. Instead, Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD) and other partners would be expected to draw information from it to either inform their advocacy or to make pronouncements on specific aspects of any issue spoken to, the report said.
Also, the data that were presented in these instances would therefore bear some relation to the national scenario, but would not be a conclusive indicator of the extent to which that variable is present in the population of Guyana, the report added.
The study was a component of a three-country examination of similar issues in the Caribbean. It was funded by the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Fifty-eight per cent of Guyanese are either tolerant or accepting of homosexuals, while 17 per cent are undecided and 25 per cent homophobic, according to the survey. The study also found that three per cent of Guyanese have admitted to being homosexual (male or female) while 4 per cent admitted to bisexuality.
The results of the survey and consequential report titled ‘Attitudes towards Homosexuals in Guyana 2013’ were revealed yesterday at a launching that was held at Moray House Trust. A summary of the data was presented by Director of CADRES Peter Wickham.
According to the findings, homophobia or lack of tolerance of homosexuals correlates directly with age, sex, race and to a lesser extent religion, place of origin and education. As a result, women, younger persons and Guyanese who were born outside Guyana tended to be more comfortable with homosexuals. The survey said Guyanese generally think that homosexuality is largely a male phenomenon and moreover it is a “choice”.
It further stated that “it is interesting that the cross tabulation of main demographic categories demonstrates that women are more tolerant than men, older people tend to be more homophobic and persons who are more educated tend to be less homophobic and more tolerant.”
However, it was also found that “active-Evangelical Christians, Afro Guyanese and those who have been “less well educated tended to be more homophobic.” Muslims and Hindus on the other hand “appear to be less accepting, but not necessarily more homophobic,” the study said.
“Notwithstanding the largely positive stance of the vast majority of Guyanese toward homosexuals, it is also clear that fundamental misunderstandings exist among Guyanese regarding several basic facts about homosexuality, and it is entirely possible that these misunderstandings could impact negatively on attitudes,” it added.
Moreover, the study showed that a 71 per cent of Guyanese consider discrimination against homosexuals as being “wrong” but at the same time they “do not seem to think that homosexuals are currently being discriminated against, or that the state needs to provide special protection for them.” Only 18 per cent of respondents argued that such violence could not be considered discrimination with a further 12 per cent indicating that they were unsure.
The study also identified the opinion of Guyanese as it pertained to the buggery law. It showed that “a slender majority, being 53 per cent, of Guyanese support the retention of the buggery law; however further investigation reveals that many of these persons are both unfamiliar with the specific provisions of this law and when advised of the specifics believe it to be ‘illogical’ in some instances.
“Although there is no profound appetite for legislative change at this time, Guyanese believe that a clear demonstration that these laws are impacting negatively on the physical or psychological well-being of young people or adults would provide good grounds for change,” the study added. But there is also support for change if it can be proven that the law contributes to the spread of HIV.
At the presentation yesterday were human rights activists, members of the religious community and the University of Guyana (UG). Representing UG was Dr Melissa Ifill who spoke extensively on the evaluation of the situation of Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgender and Intersex (LBGTI) persons.
She noted that the study filled an important vacuum in the examination of the situation of LBGTI individuals in Guyana. Dr Ifill noted that “prior to this quantitative survey, the studies conducted to date have several limitations including small sample size, largely qualitative in scope and have been largely concentrated on Men who have sex with Men (MSM) and male/transgender sex workers within the donor driven context of HIV/AIDS research.”
She said this study “exposes the attitudes, beliefs and perceptions that justify and excuse discrimination and mal-treatment of citizens with differing sexual orientations and in fact, reinforces many findings of the more focused, less extensive qualitative studies conducted in Guyana.”
Dr Ifill also stated that there are still “serious legal consequences for male homosexuality by law while female homosexuality continues to be largely ignored. While the law banning homosexual intercourse is specifically directed towards men and ignores homosexual contact between women, the laws against cross dressing apply equally to men and women although, women wearing male garb have not been prosecuted while men wearing female garb have been placed before the courts and subjected to ridicule, intolerance or abuse from members of the public and even members of the judiciary.”
Last year, a parliamentary committee was set up to hold national consultations on recommendations by the United Nations Human Rights Council for decriminalizing consensual same sex relations and instituting legislative changes to prevent discrimination against LGBTI persons, as well as to abolish the death penalty and corporal punishment. To date, the committee has only held consultations on corporal punishment.
The research was conducted with participants from across Guyana based on random selection normally associated with polling divisions (PDs) in each administrative division. The information was then obtained largely by interviews, with the sample population being 1,034. As it relates to the gender makeup of the sample size, 47 per cent of the respondents were male while 53 per cent were females. The majority of the respondents were also said to be Africans.
It is also stated that the study could be considered a comprehensive presentation of data but it was agreed that it should not be seen or used as a strategic document. Instead, Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD) and other partners would be expected to draw information from it to either inform their advocacy or to make pronouncements on specific aspects of any issue spoken to, the report said.
Also, the data that were presented in these instances would therefore bear some relation to the national scenario, but would not be a conclusive indicator of the extent to which that variable is present in the population of Guyana, the report added.
The study was a component of a three-country examination of similar issues in the Caribbean. It was funded by the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2013/news/stories/07/20/more-guyanese-tolerant-of-homosexuals/
CADRES Survey is an important vacuum in LBGT examination – Dr. Ifill
By Latoya Giles
The much anticipated launch of the survey report “Attitudes toward Homosexuals in Guyana” was held yesterday at the Moray House, where several panelists including Peter Wickham, the Director of CADRES made presentations.
Senior lecturer in the Department of Social Studies, of the University of Guyana, Dr. Mellissa Ifill, was one of the presenters. Her presentation was dubbed evaluating the Situation of LBGTI Individuals in Guyana.
According to Dr. Ifill, the survey and consequential report “Attitudes towards Homosexuals in Guyana 2013” fills an important vacuum in the examination of the situation of the Lesbian, Bisexual, and Gay, Transgender and Intersex (LBGTI) individuals in Guyana. She said that it exposes the attitudes, beliefs and perceptions that justify and excuse discrimination and maltreatment of citizens with differing sexual orientations and in fact, reinforces many of findings of the more focused, less extensive qualitative studies conducted in Guyana.
Dr. Mellissa Ifill
She explained that prior to this survey which was done by
CADRES/SASOD, the studies conducted to date have several limitations,
including small sample size. Ifill told the gathering that they are
largely qualitative in scope and have been concentrated on men who have
sex with men (MSM) and male/transgender sex workers within the donor
driven context of HIV/AIDS research.
As a result, Dr. Ifill said that analyses which address other groups with the LBGTI continuum and those that examine societal attitudes to LBGTI individuals are missing. She said that the report therefore fills an important gap in the literature and will be useful for activists and policy makers as they attempt to enhance the security of LBGTI individuals in Guyana.
Although limited, and not of a statistical/quantitative nature, Ifill said that there is sufficient available evidence to broadly assert that there are LBGTI individuals who experience discrimination, marginalization and abuse because of their sexual orientation and gender identity in Guyana.
She noted that LGBTI persons have very little state protection and acknowledgement of rights, which renders this group particularly vulnerable to abuse.
She said that it was the UNDP’s 2011 Human Development Report on Citizen Security in the Caribbean which identified the LGBTI community as one of the vulnerable groups to discrimination, crime and violence in the Caribbean (along with woman and children).
The report also sought to ascertain why they are targeted, where and why there is social approval for certain forms of violence and why certain communities are relatively unprotected.
The report noted that while violence against vulnerable groups in Guyana is not a recent phenomenon, it appears to be intensifying as the society overall seems to have become more violent in the wake of the emergence and growth of a market economy and a changed social structure that was accompanied by growing crime.
One pressing dilemma, she said, is for policymakers. Civil society has been slow to prevent discrimination, violence and crime. It has also been slow to legally protect vulnerable groups and, foster harmony and peace overall within the society.
According to Dr Ifill, the dilemma becomes greater when resistance to protection of these groups is premised on deep religious and cultural bases.
Dr Ifill opined that the study further disclosed that levels of tolerance were connected to a number of factors including geography, area size and wealth/social class with urban and wealthy residents displaying more social tolerance, while smaller sized communities are less tolerant of LBGTI individuals and their lifestyles.
The lecturer explained that a 2010 UNDP sponsored study on sexual and gender minorities supports the notion that there are different levels of tolerance to LGBTI individuals in Guyana although according to this study from an ethnic and cultural standpoint.
She noted that in focus group discussions, MSM reported low levels of tolerance in predominantly Afro Guyanese communities where they are physically attacked and taunted while there are some perceptibly higher levels of tolerance in Indo Guyanese communities. Consequently MSM reported feeling more comfortable living in the latter neighbourhoods.
Discrimination and lack of social tolerance of gender and sexual identity minorities in Guyana are premised upon cultural tradition, religious opposition and the law, Ifill said. The most vociferous opposition to extending full rights constitutionally and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation emanates from the religious community in Guyana, and especially from sections of the Christian and Muslim faiths.
She said that the fact, sustained protest from the latter two groups was believed to be largely responsible for the President’s not assenting to the Constitutional Amendment No. 5 Bill No. 18, 2000 which parliament passed by a vote of 55-0 and submitted for his assent. Ifill said that these religious groups fought to have sexual orientation bases taken out of the fundamental rights section of the constitution, and argued that while they supported banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, they were not in agreement that the ban should be enshrined as a constitutional right (Stabroek News January 26, 2001 “Sexual Orientation Bill Going back to Parliament”.)
Ultimately the Government dropped the constitutional amendment prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Wills 2010).
Consequently in Guyana, there are still serious legal consequences for male homosexuality by law while female homosexuality continues to be largely ignored. Although there have been no recorded convictions of individuals involved in private, consensual male homosexual acts, legally and constitutionally, there is no accommodation of MSM.
Also illegal under the laws of Guyana is cross-dressing. She noted that while the law banning homosexual intercourse is specifically directed towards men and ignores homosexual contact between women, the laws against cross dressing apply equally to men and women although, women wearing male garb have not been prosecuted while men wearing female garb have been placed before the courts and subjected to ridicule, intolerance or abuse from members of the public and even members of the judiciary.
Although male sexual intercourse is legally prohibited, abuse against LBGTI individuals is not tolerated at several legal levels. Any individual, who is violated or abused physically, including members of sexual and gender minorities, has recourse to the law and the perpetrator is liable to be punished.
LBGTI rights advocates argue that there is some incompatibility between international conventions and laws and Guyana’s domestic laws. These rights advocates note that Guyana is a signatory to the UN Declaration of Human Rights that guarantee and protect human rights of every individual, irrespective of race, gender, ethnicity, age or wealth and therefore it is obligated to ensure that the constitution and domestic laws explicitly offer protection to all citizens rather than criminalizing them.
They have therefore insisted that there be a repeal of the laws outlawing homosexuality and cross dressing.
As a result, Dr. Ifill said that analyses which address other groups with the LBGTI continuum and those that examine societal attitudes to LBGTI individuals are missing. She said that the report therefore fills an important gap in the literature and will be useful for activists and policy makers as they attempt to enhance the security of LBGTI individuals in Guyana.
Although limited, and not of a statistical/quantitative nature, Ifill said that there is sufficient available evidence to broadly assert that there are LBGTI individuals who experience discrimination, marginalization and abuse because of their sexual orientation and gender identity in Guyana.
She noted that LGBTI persons have very little state protection and acknowledgement of rights, which renders this group particularly vulnerable to abuse.
She said that it was the UNDP’s 2011 Human Development Report on Citizen Security in the Caribbean which identified the LGBTI community as one of the vulnerable groups to discrimination, crime and violence in the Caribbean (along with woman and children).
The report also sought to ascertain why they are targeted, where and why there is social approval for certain forms of violence and why certain communities are relatively unprotected.
The report noted that while violence against vulnerable groups in Guyana is not a recent phenomenon, it appears to be intensifying as the society overall seems to have become more violent in the wake of the emergence and growth of a market economy and a changed social structure that was accompanied by growing crime.
One pressing dilemma, she said, is for policymakers. Civil society has been slow to prevent discrimination, violence and crime. It has also been slow to legally protect vulnerable groups and, foster harmony and peace overall within the society.
According to Dr Ifill, the dilemma becomes greater when resistance to protection of these groups is premised on deep religious and cultural bases.
Dr Ifill opined that the study further disclosed that levels of tolerance were connected to a number of factors including geography, area size and wealth/social class with urban and wealthy residents displaying more social tolerance, while smaller sized communities are less tolerant of LBGTI individuals and their lifestyles.
The lecturer explained that a 2010 UNDP sponsored study on sexual and gender minorities supports the notion that there are different levels of tolerance to LGBTI individuals in Guyana although according to this study from an ethnic and cultural standpoint.
She noted that in focus group discussions, MSM reported low levels of tolerance in predominantly Afro Guyanese communities where they are physically attacked and taunted while there are some perceptibly higher levels of tolerance in Indo Guyanese communities. Consequently MSM reported feeling more comfortable living in the latter neighbourhoods.
Discrimination and lack of social tolerance of gender and sexual identity minorities in Guyana are premised upon cultural tradition, religious opposition and the law, Ifill said. The most vociferous opposition to extending full rights constitutionally and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation emanates from the religious community in Guyana, and especially from sections of the Christian and Muslim faiths.
She said that the fact, sustained protest from the latter two groups was believed to be largely responsible for the President’s not assenting to the Constitutional Amendment No. 5 Bill No. 18, 2000 which parliament passed by a vote of 55-0 and submitted for his assent. Ifill said that these religious groups fought to have sexual orientation bases taken out of the fundamental rights section of the constitution, and argued that while they supported banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, they were not in agreement that the ban should be enshrined as a constitutional right (Stabroek News January 26, 2001 “Sexual Orientation Bill Going back to Parliament”.)
Ultimately the Government dropped the constitutional amendment prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Wills 2010).
Consequently in Guyana, there are still serious legal consequences for male homosexuality by law while female homosexuality continues to be largely ignored. Although there have been no recorded convictions of individuals involved in private, consensual male homosexual acts, legally and constitutionally, there is no accommodation of MSM.
Also illegal under the laws of Guyana is cross-dressing. She noted that while the law banning homosexual intercourse is specifically directed towards men and ignores homosexual contact between women, the laws against cross dressing apply equally to men and women although, women wearing male garb have not been prosecuted while men wearing female garb have been placed before the courts and subjected to ridicule, intolerance or abuse from members of the public and even members of the judiciary.
Although male sexual intercourse is legally prohibited, abuse against LBGTI individuals is not tolerated at several legal levels. Any individual, who is violated or abused physically, including members of sexual and gender minorities, has recourse to the law and the perpetrator is liable to be punished.
LBGTI rights advocates argue that there is some incompatibility between international conventions and laws and Guyana’s domestic laws. These rights advocates note that Guyana is a signatory to the UN Declaration of Human Rights that guarantee and protect human rights of every individual, irrespective of race, gender, ethnicity, age or wealth and therefore it is obligated to ensure that the constitution and domestic laws explicitly offer protection to all citizens rather than criminalizing them.
They have therefore insisted that there be a repeal of the laws outlawing homosexuality and cross dressing.
Opposition should use gay rights as vote-getter- political analyst
Director of CADRES, Peter Wickham delivering the findings of a research on Attitudes Towards Homosexuals in Guyana.
A Caribbean political analyst and pollster believes that
Guyanese political parties should win over homosexual voters, though he
does not believe that category can definitively decide the outcome of an
election.
Head of the Barbados-based Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES), Peter Wickham says the opposition Peoples National Congress Reform (PNCR)/ A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) should persuade its somewhat homophobic support base to be more open-minded to homosexuals to win votes from the governing Peoples Progressive Party Civic (PPPC).
“If APNU or whatever the alternative colour is were to become more progressive on gay issues, it may very well present an opportunity for persons who are associated with the PPP Civic to defect,” Wickham told Demerara Waves Online News (www.demwaves.com).
He does not believe that the PNCR will lose votes if takes a pro-homosexual stance because its supporters have been historically dedicated to that party even in the worst of times. “I don’t know it is a vote-loser but I think it could be a vote-gainer and I think in a narrow election race I would think that it is unwise not to explore that option,” he said.
In the 2011 general election, the PPPC secured 166,340 votes (32 seats), APNU 139,678 votes (26 seats) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) 35,333 votes (seven seats).
Back in 2006, the PPP won 183,867 votes (36 seats), PNCR – now the major partner in the APNU- 114,608 votes (22 seats), and the AFC 28,366 votes (five seats).
“You are in a very tight election race. If the position on gay issues can help to gain voters, I would think that it is something that a political party would want to do because I think you need to look at every single opportunity to gain voters and I do believe that it is a plank on which voters can be gained,” he said. At the same time, the analyst is unsure whether there are sufficient persons who believe that the gay rights issue is significant enough to change the tide of every election.
Asked whether being pro-homosexual could scare away hard-line religious persons, Wickham said he was not worried because that group was in the minority and they were known to identify battles on issues such as common-law marriage, abortion and gambling to continue to make them relevant.
“I think we have to understand that they are in a minority in Guyana. I think the poll more than anything said that as virulent as the views of hard-line religious people are, they are a minority of people in this country,” he said.
A recent CADRES survey on Attitudes Towards Homosexuals in Guyana, which was funded by a research grant from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), shows that active-Evangelical Christians, Afro Guyanese and those who have been “less-well” educated tended to be more homophobic.
Figures show that 26 percent of active Evangelical Christians hate homosexuals, 47 percent tolerate it and 14 percent accept it, while 17 percent non Evangelical Christians hate homosexuals, 51 percent tolerate it and 13 percent accept it. For active Muslims, 24 percent hate homosexuals, 34 percent hate it and 16 percent tolerate it, and 26 percent of Hindus hate homosexuals, 42 percent tolerate it and 18 percent accept it.
“One general observation of interest relates to the impact of the “active” pursuit of a religious orientation since it can be seen that active evangelical Christians are more inclined to be homophobic and less inclined to be accepting or tolerant, while active non-evangelical Christians are significantly more inclined to be tolerant, and also significantly less inclined to be homophobic and accepting.
The differences within the Muslim and Hindu groups are less dramatic and it can generally be argued that “active” Evangelical Christians in Guyana appear to be the most homophobic, while “passive” non-Evangelical Christians are the most accepting,” states the study.
US President Barack Obama successfully used the gay rights platform, considered a ‘wedge issue’ across political parties, to win a second term in office.
A Fundamental Rights provision of Guyana's constitution that had included the protection of persons from discrimination despite their sexual orientation had not been signed into law by then President Bharrat Jagdeo after stiff objection by the religious community.
By Latoya Giles
The survey “Attitudes toward Homosexuals in Guyana” which was launched, last week, in Guyana has demonstrated that Guyanese are largely either tolerant or accepting of homosexuals. However, about 25 per cent of the population could genuinely be described as “homophobic”.
On the other hand the survey shows that about 58 per cent of Guyanese are either “tolerant” or “accepting” of homosexuals, while 17 per cent were undecided. The study has highlighted that homophobia or alternatively tolerance of homosexuals correlates directly with age, sex, and race and to a lesser extent religion, place of origin and education.
As such, women, younger persons and Guyanese who were not born in Guyana tended to be more comfortable with homosexuals, while active-Evangelical Christians, Afro Guyanese and those who have been “less-well” educated tended to be more homophobic.
Notwithstanding the largely positive stance of the vast majority of Guyanese toward homosexuals, the survey shows clearly that there is a fundamental misunderstanding existing among Guyanese regarding several basis facts about homosexuality.
It is entirely possible that these misunderstandings could impact negatively on attitudes.
Guyanese generally think that homosexuality is largely a male phenomenon and moreover that it is a “choice”. These are two misunderstandings that carry substantial baggage. There is also a heavy religious overtone regarding the “proper” location of sexual orientation and sexual expression, along with the presumption that the religious teaching should continue to influence the State’s agenda and treatment of homosexuals, the survey found.
With regard to discrimination (as manifested in violence) the survey demonstrates clearly that Guyanese do dislike the idea of violence against minorities and discrimination in all its manifestations.
Moreover, Guyanese largely consider discrimination against homosexuals to be “wrong”. At the same time; Guyanese do not seem to think that homosexuals are currently being discriminated against, or that the state needs to provide special protection for them.
Interestingly, there is strong support for the provision of special protections for Persons Living with AIDS (PLWA) and while some of these persons might be homosexual, there is no strong desire on the part of the population for specific protections for homosexuals against discrimination.
The general Guyanese reaction to the legislative environment that relates to homosexuals is conflicting. Further, the survey shows that a slender majority of Guyanese support the retention of the “buggery law”; however further investigation reveals that many of these persons are both unfamiliar with the specific provisions of this law and when advised of the specifics believe it to be “illogical” in some instances.
Notwithstanding, there is a clear resistance on the part of the population to “let go” of these laws which a majority of persons believe are a clear expression of Guyana’s moral and religious standards.
In this regard, it is interesting to note the populations’ ability to separate religion and state as it relates to the propriety of “Common Law” marriage, while the state is presumed to have an obligation to project religious principles as it relates to homosexual acts.
Although there is no profound appetite for legislative change at this time, Guyanese believe that a clear demonstration that these laws are impacting negatively on the physical or psychological well-being of young people or adults would provide good grounds for change.
In the survey there is also support for change if it can be proven that the laws contribute to the spread of HIV/AIDS. It should be made clear; however that in neither instance has the survey demonstrated that Guyanese are convinced that either of these “perils” have manifested themselves locally on account of the existence of buggery laws.
Although there is a stated preference for the retention of the buggery law, there is little interest in having the state prevent private sex between adults (of any sex) if that were possible. This peculiarity suggests that Guyanese are perhaps really concerned about public manifestations of sexual orientation, as distinct from private manifestations and appear to believe that the changing of the laws would help to encourage these public manifestations.
The juxtaposition of Guyanese support for decriminalization (of homosexual acts) with their opinion on other major social issues does lend support to the suggestion that Guyanese are less committed to the retention of these laws than they are to issues like corporal punishment which also have a religious justification.
This distance is significant, as is the finding in the survey that the position of a political party is not likely to affect its chances at the polls.
Barbadian Peter Wickham, who is the Director of CADRES, conducted the survey. The research was funded entirely by a research grant from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
From Capitol News, 24 July, 2013
Head of the Barbados-based Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES), Peter Wickham says the opposition Peoples National Congress Reform (PNCR)/ A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) should persuade its somewhat homophobic support base to be more open-minded to homosexuals to win votes from the governing Peoples Progressive Party Civic (PPPC).
“If APNU or whatever the alternative colour is were to become more progressive on gay issues, it may very well present an opportunity for persons who are associated with the PPP Civic to defect,” Wickham told Demerara Waves Online News (www.demwaves.com).
He does not believe that the PNCR will lose votes if takes a pro-homosexual stance because its supporters have been historically dedicated to that party even in the worst of times. “I don’t know it is a vote-loser but I think it could be a vote-gainer and I think in a narrow election race I would think that it is unwise not to explore that option,” he said.
In the 2011 general election, the PPPC secured 166,340 votes (32 seats), APNU 139,678 votes (26 seats) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) 35,333 votes (seven seats).
Back in 2006, the PPP won 183,867 votes (36 seats), PNCR – now the major partner in the APNU- 114,608 votes (22 seats), and the AFC 28,366 votes (five seats).
“You are in a very tight election race. If the position on gay issues can help to gain voters, I would think that it is something that a political party would want to do because I think you need to look at every single opportunity to gain voters and I do believe that it is a plank on which voters can be gained,” he said. At the same time, the analyst is unsure whether there are sufficient persons who believe that the gay rights issue is significant enough to change the tide of every election.
Asked whether being pro-homosexual could scare away hard-line religious persons, Wickham said he was not worried because that group was in the minority and they were known to identify battles on issues such as common-law marriage, abortion and gambling to continue to make them relevant.
“I think we have to understand that they are in a minority in Guyana. I think the poll more than anything said that as virulent as the views of hard-line religious people are, they are a minority of people in this country,” he said.
A recent CADRES survey on Attitudes Towards Homosexuals in Guyana, which was funded by a research grant from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), shows that active-Evangelical Christians, Afro Guyanese and those who have been “less-well” educated tended to be more homophobic.
Figures show that 26 percent of active Evangelical Christians hate homosexuals, 47 percent tolerate it and 14 percent accept it, while 17 percent non Evangelical Christians hate homosexuals, 51 percent tolerate it and 13 percent accept it. For active Muslims, 24 percent hate homosexuals, 34 percent hate it and 16 percent tolerate it, and 26 percent of Hindus hate homosexuals, 42 percent tolerate it and 18 percent accept it.
“One general observation of interest relates to the impact of the “active” pursuit of a religious orientation since it can be seen that active evangelical Christians are more inclined to be homophobic and less inclined to be accepting or tolerant, while active non-evangelical Christians are significantly more inclined to be tolerant, and also significantly less inclined to be homophobic and accepting.
The differences within the Muslim and Hindu groups are less dramatic and it can generally be argued that “active” Evangelical Christians in Guyana appear to be the most homophobic, while “passive” non-Evangelical Christians are the most accepting,” states the study.
US President Barack Obama successfully used the gay rights platform, considered a ‘wedge issue’ across political parties, to win a second term in office.
A Fundamental Rights provision of Guyana's constitution that had included the protection of persons from discrimination despite their sexual orientation had not been signed into law by then President Bharrat Jagdeo after stiff objection by the religious community.
Guyanese are largely either tolerant or accepting of homosexuals
- According to CADRES surveyBy Latoya Giles
The survey “Attitudes toward Homosexuals in Guyana” which was launched, last week, in Guyana has demonstrated that Guyanese are largely either tolerant or accepting of homosexuals. However, about 25 per cent of the population could genuinely be described as “homophobic”.
On the other hand the survey shows that about 58 per cent of Guyanese are either “tolerant” or “accepting” of homosexuals, while 17 per cent were undecided. The study has highlighted that homophobia or alternatively tolerance of homosexuals correlates directly with age, sex, and race and to a lesser extent religion, place of origin and education.
As such, women, younger persons and Guyanese who were not born in Guyana tended to be more comfortable with homosexuals, while active-Evangelical Christians, Afro Guyanese and those who have been “less-well” educated tended to be more homophobic.
Notwithstanding the largely positive stance of the vast majority of Guyanese toward homosexuals, the survey shows clearly that there is a fundamental misunderstanding existing among Guyanese regarding several basis facts about homosexuality.
It is entirely possible that these misunderstandings could impact negatively on attitudes.
Guyanese generally think that homosexuality is largely a male phenomenon and moreover that it is a “choice”. These are two misunderstandings that carry substantial baggage. There is also a heavy religious overtone regarding the “proper” location of sexual orientation and sexual expression, along with the presumption that the religious teaching should continue to influence the State’s agenda and treatment of homosexuals, the survey found.
With regard to discrimination (as manifested in violence) the survey demonstrates clearly that Guyanese do dislike the idea of violence against minorities and discrimination in all its manifestations.
Moreover, Guyanese largely consider discrimination against homosexuals to be “wrong”. At the same time; Guyanese do not seem to think that homosexuals are currently being discriminated against, or that the state needs to provide special protection for them.
Interestingly, there is strong support for the provision of special protections for Persons Living with AIDS (PLWA) and while some of these persons might be homosexual, there is no strong desire on the part of the population for specific protections for homosexuals against discrimination.
The general Guyanese reaction to the legislative environment that relates to homosexuals is conflicting. Further, the survey shows that a slender majority of Guyanese support the retention of the “buggery law”; however further investigation reveals that many of these persons are both unfamiliar with the specific provisions of this law and when advised of the specifics believe it to be “illogical” in some instances.
Notwithstanding, there is a clear resistance on the part of the population to “let go” of these laws which a majority of persons believe are a clear expression of Guyana’s moral and religious standards.
In this regard, it is interesting to note the populations’ ability to separate religion and state as it relates to the propriety of “Common Law” marriage, while the state is presumed to have an obligation to project religious principles as it relates to homosexual acts.
Although there is no profound appetite for legislative change at this time, Guyanese believe that a clear demonstration that these laws are impacting negatively on the physical or psychological well-being of young people or adults would provide good grounds for change.
In the survey there is also support for change if it can be proven that the laws contribute to the spread of HIV/AIDS. It should be made clear; however that in neither instance has the survey demonstrated that Guyanese are convinced that either of these “perils” have manifested themselves locally on account of the existence of buggery laws.
Although there is a stated preference for the retention of the buggery law, there is little interest in having the state prevent private sex between adults (of any sex) if that were possible. This peculiarity suggests that Guyanese are perhaps really concerned about public manifestations of sexual orientation, as distinct from private manifestations and appear to believe that the changing of the laws would help to encourage these public manifestations.
The juxtaposition of Guyanese support for decriminalization (of homosexual acts) with their opinion on other major social issues does lend support to the suggestion that Guyanese are less committed to the retention of these laws than they are to issues like corporal punishment which also have a religious justification.
This distance is significant, as is the finding in the survey that the position of a political party is not likely to affect its chances at the polls.
Barbadian Peter Wickham, who is the Director of CADRES, conducted the survey. The research was funded entirely by a research grant from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
From Capitol News, 24 July, 2013
Comments
Post a Comment